Here's a hint, we already know you can't find any. Why, because what you are proposing is nonsensical and impossible.

You aren't aware of gravity? Really?

I call BS on this as well. I don't think your assertion is true. Please provide references that all known nebulae are expanding.

The BS comes from the evos as no one has been able to observe it happening, and it is a hard luck (my terminology) theory from the evos as it was postulated so as to explain something that Science cannot prove. You can believe it if you want to, but physical science laws strike it down as impossible

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

... I suspect I'm just naive in this regard, but is there any chance that you would care to share a refereed (peer-reviewed) paper that supports your assertions that "ALL OF THE GAS CLOUDS IN OUTER SPACE ARE SHOWN TO BE EXPANDING" and "Stars forming by themselves won't ever happen based on actual Science"? Given that the request was first to put to you over 16 months ago I suspect I have my answer.

-ArtificialGrape

The Nebular Hypothesis (from the 1700's IIRC) has been repeatedly challenged and shown to be impossible due to actual scientific observations in the 20th century. The theory itself has had to evolve.

“Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.” D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984) page 8

__________________“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution.” - Barry Soetoro"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible""Are there more things that you need, or more that you don't need?""

You're a physicist and you need references? Hey, I know of no mechanism in outer space that can clump gases together so as to produce a star. hey, this very well may be so because I am simply ignorant of the mechanism. I studied topic for a long time, and I haven't found anything but highly improbable theories, as opposed to actual Science, to reveal a mechanism for star formation.

but here you are acknowledging that Animal Mother is part of this same star formation discussion along with Geko45 and me.

What gives, why are you trying to exclude him now?

-ArtificialGrape

Are you serious?!? Wow... just wow. (LOL_ Speechless... I hope you can figure it out.)

Never mind, we cross-posted.

__________________“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution.” - Barry Soetoro"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible""Are there more things that you need, or more that you don't need?""

I'm still waiting for you to provide any of this wealth of all available research.

thanks,
-ArtificialGrape

Let me put it this way: ALL available research that's believable or based on Science indicates that stars cannot form by themselves. For instance, Martin Harwit's Astrophysical Concepts (1973) ETA: Peruse his position on hydrogen forming together by itself in outer space.

__________________“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution.” - Barry Soetoro"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible""Are there more things that you need, or more that you don't need?""

That must be very disconcerting for you having multiple people ask you to produce evidence at the same time. Perhaps you could solve your conundrum by producing that evidence.

Quote:

If you want to a rational dialogue, start a topic on which you'd like to discuss.

I have. Unfortunately, your standard tactic is to make sweeping declarations and attempt to end the discussion. When that fails, you feign offense and flee. See the discussion of Luke in this thread for an example.

Quote:

We've, you and I, have debated on GT for years.

"Debate" implies you've ever actually produced any facts in support of your position. This is not the case.

Quote:

You're willingly ignorant and refuse to accept what is no0t inline with your presuppositions and evolutionary worldview.

I refuse to accept that for which there is no evidence. That this happens to coincide with the position you advocate can't rightfully be blamed on me.

Quote:

Okay, I get it,

I highly doubt this is the case.

Quote:

but I don't have to continually entertain your irrational, obsessive (if not psychotic) extremism when it comes to the topic of the theory of evolution and or the Holy Bible.

To reiterate, that "extremism" consists of asking for evidence that supports the position you claim. Evidence which you uniformly fail to produce. To clarify, things like "google it" don't qualify as producing evidence, just in case you don't get it.

Quote:

Simply put, I am not here to try to change your mind -am-, and I am sure not obligated to respond tit-for-tat to your incessant, out of place postings.

You claim something is true and supported by all available evidence, I ask you to produce that evidence, you retreat into insult. Where is the out of place posting in that chain?

Quote:

If you want to discuss a particular topic, fine, let me know what it is, but stop trying to interrupt other ongoing discussions.

Ok, how about Lucy's knee?

__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."

That must be very disconcerting for you having multiple people ask you to produce evidence at the same time. Perhaps you could solve your conundrum by producing that evidence.
I have. Unfortunately, your standard tactic is to make sweeping declarations and attempt to end the discussion. When that fails, you feign offense and flee. See the discussion of Luke in this thread for an example.
"Debate" implies you've ever actually produced any facts in support of your position. This is not the case.
I refuse to accept that for which there is no evidence. That this happens to coincide with the position you advocate can't rightfully be blamed on me.
I highly doubt this is the case.
To reiterate, that "extremism" consists of asking for evidence that supports the position you claim. Evidence which you uniformly fail to produce. To clarify, things like "google it" don't qualify as producing evidence, just in case you don't get it.
You claim something is true and supported by all available evidence, I ask you to produce that evidence, you retreat into insult. Where is the out of place posting in that chain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

Ok, how about Lucy's knee?

Yeah, I'm sure you would have found out how ludicrous the find was by now. I guess you refuse to believe the truth about "her" knee as well huh?

__________________“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution.” - Barry Soetoro"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible""Are there more things that you need, or more that you don't need?""

For your claims? Yes, I do. My being a physicist gives very little insight into your absurd claims. Will those references be forthcoming any time soon?

Quote:

Hey, I know of no mechanism in outer space that can clump gases together so as to produce a star.

You're ignorant. Noted. Being a physicist, I am aware of such a mechanism. It's called gravitation.

Quote:

hey, this very well may be so because I am simply ignorant of the mechanism.

Apparently.

Quote:

I studied topic for a long time, and I haven't found anything but highly improbable theories, as opposed to actual Science, to reveal a mechanism for star formation.

Perhaps you need to study harder.

Quote:

Can you show me an observable instance of gasses clumping together? (NOTE: Please do not post yet more photos of nebulae as everyone knows that they are expanding and NOT condensing/contracting.)

No, everyone does not know that. Nor does everyone know that it is impossible for a nebular cloud as a whole to expand while specific regions within it collapse into protostars. People don't know these things because observation, that being the pictures you so dislike, show us exactly the opposite to be true.

__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."

You can believe it if you want to, but physical science laws strike it down as impossible

Which physical laws? Boyle's Law? Is that all you got? Please show me the component of Boyle's Law that incorporates the effects of gravity? Can you even write Boyle's Law down without having to google it first?

You are ignorant of science and with each post you demonstrate further your complete lack of understanding of the relevant principles on this cosmologic scale.

__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

The BS comes from the evos as no one has been able to observe it happening,

Except every astrophysicist and astronomer who's bothered to look through a telescope.

Quote:

The Nebular Hypothesis (from the 1700's IIRC) has been repeatedly challenged and shown to be impossible due to actual scientific observations in the 20th century. The theory itself has had to evolve.

“Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.” D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984) page 8

What's this? An actual reference? Why, this might throw everything we know out the window. Unless, of course, the book is available online and we're able to read the next two paragraphs:

In the universe of motion the inward and outward forces arrive at an equilibrium, as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs. No condensation would take place if this equilibrium persisted, but the continued introduction of new matter from the cosmic sector alters the situation. The added mass strengthens the gravitational force, and initiates a contraction. The decrease in the distance between particles increases the gravitational force still further. The contraction is thus a self-reinforcing process, and once it is started it accelerates,

The two processes that have been described, the gradual contraction of the very large diffuse aggregate and the consolidation of the individual atoms and sub-atomic particles into molecules and dust particles, take place coincidentally. The drastic reduction in the number of separate units in the aggregate resulting from the consolidation results in an excess of empty space within the contracting volume, and causes the contracting sphere of matter to break up into a large number of smaller aggregates separated by nearly empty space. The product is a globular cluster, in which a large number of submasses—up to a million or more—are contained within the overall gravitational limit of a large spherical aggregate. Each of the sub-masses is outside the gravitational limits of its neighbors, and is therefore moving away from them, but it is being pulled inward by the gravitational force of the entire aggregate.

Well now, that's really inconvenient for your argument, isn't it PW? It also seems to indicate that you were quote mining and attempting to misrepresent the author's intent. Of course, I'm not endorsing Larson's theories, but the quotes above are from a review of mainstream scientific theory.

__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."

Let me put it this way: ALL available research that's believable or based on Science indicates that stars cannot form by themselves. For instance, Martin Harwit's Astrophysical Concepts (1973) ETA: Peruse his position on hydrogen forming together by itself in outer space.

My copy of Dr. Harwit's book is 712 pages. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about where support for your position can be found.

Edit:

From the cited book, the section is entitled Star Formation:

We believe that no star has existed forever — because sooner or later its energy sup-ply must run out — and so we must account for the birth of stars. Inasmuch as those
stars that we believe to be young are always found close to clouds of interstellar dust and gas, we argue that such clouds of cosmic matter must be contracting slowly, giving rise to increasingly compact condensations, some of which eventually collapse
down to stellar size.

This picture makes a good deal of sense. Dust grains in interstellar space are very effective at radiating away heat. When a hydrogen atom in a cloud of dust and gas collides with a cold dust grain, the grain becomes slightly heated and radiates away this energy in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. This results in a net loss of kinetic energy of the gas, which gravitates toward the center of the cloud, gains some kinetic energy in falling, and again transfers a part of this to ambient dust grains to repeat the cooling cycle. The gas also transfers some of its centrally directed momentum to grains, thus also causing the grains to drift in toward the center of the contracting cloud. The cloud as a whole contracts.

Grain radiation is not the only radiative process that rids a protostellar cloud of energy. As it collapses, the protostar becomes progressively hotter, and various molecular and atomic states are excited through collisions. The excited particles emit radiation to return to their ground states. As radiation escapes, the net loss of energy cools the cloud (Fig. 1.2).

Attractive though it is, there are difficulties with this picture. First, the protostar cannot just lose energy in forming a star. It must also lose angular momentum.

The amount of matter needed to form a star from an interstellar cloud with a density 10^3atoms cm^−3 requires the collapse of gas from a volume whose initial radius r would be of order 10^18 cm. Over such distances, the observed rotational velocity v, about the cloud’s center might be ~10^4 cm s^−1 for a cold Galactic molecular cloud, so that the angular momentum per unit mass rv~10^22 cm^2 s^−1. In contrast, the observed surface velocities of typical stars indicate an angular momentum per
unit mass many orders of magnitude lower: 10^16 to 10^18.3 cm^2 s^−1. For the Sun, it is only ~10^15 cm^2 s^-1, but the angular momentum of the Solar System taken as a whole corresponds to 10^17 cm^2 s^−1. Entries in Table 1.4 allow us to conclude that most of the angular momentum resides in the motion of Jupiter orbiting the Sun. A comparison of the rotational velocities of stars given in Table A.4 of Appendix A, further indicates that the angular momentum of the entire Solar System equals that of more massive stars of spectral types F and A. It is therefore tempting to associate the observed low angular momentum of less massive stars with the formation of planetary systems. The initially contracting cloud of interstellar matter somehow contrives to redistribute almost all of its angular momentum to a gaseous disk that eventually gives rise to orbiting planets. Only a small fraction of the angular momentum is retained by the star.

A similar problem concerns themagnetic fieldinitially present in the interstellar medium. If this field is predominantly oriented along some given direction, then the final field after contraction of the cloud to form a star would also have that direction. The flux density B of the magnetic field permeating a cloud is inversely proportional to the cross-section of the area of the cloud as it contracts, as long as the magnetic lines of force act as if frozen to the partially ionized gas (Section 6:2). Thus, the number of these lines of force threading through the cross-sectional area stays constant. A field, B, initially as weak as 10^−6 gauss would become some 10^14 times stronger as the protostellar radius decreased from 10^18 down to 10^11 cm. Actual fields found on the surfaces of stars like the Sun are of the order of one gauss, and the highest fields observed in a few peculiar stars only range up to tens of thousands of gauss. Protostellar contraction must therefore beaccompanied by destruction or loss of magnetic field lines permeating the interstellar material. How this loss occurs is still under active investigation.

I don't see Dr. Harwit saying stars can't form here, do you? Perhaps your evidence comes from a different portion of the book though. If so, I'm sure you'll share the specific section or page number with us.

__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."

What's this? An actual reference? Why, this might throw everything we know out the window. Unless, of course, the book is available online and we're able to read the next two paragraphs:

I guess that explains why he didn't provide a link.

Peace Warrior, I've only ever called one other person here a damn liar (CavDoc). Congratulations on being the second, if you are right about there being a god then you'll have to hope he forgives you for your willful deceptions.

__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Yeah, I'm sure you would have found out how ludicrous the find was by now. I guess you refuse to believe the truth about "her" knee as well huh?

What truth is that exactly?

__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."

Okay, you're on record as gravity being the cause. I have to go, but I will be right back. Thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

For your claims? Yes, I do. My being a physicist gives very little insight into your absurd claims. Will those references be forthcoming any time soon?
You're ignorant. Noted. Being a physicist, I am aware of such a mechanism. ...
Apparently.
Perhaps you need to study harder.
No, everyone does not know that. Nor does everyone know that it is impossible for a nebular cloud as a whole to expand while specific regions within it collapse into protostars. People don't know these things because observation, that being the pictures you so dislike, show us exactly the opposite to be true.

__________________“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution.” - Barry Soetoro"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible""Are there more things that you need, or more that you don't need?""

I suspect I'm just naive in this regard, but is there any chance that you would care to share a refereed (peer-reviewed) paper that supports your assertions that "ALL OF THE GAS CLOUDS IN OUTER SPACE ARE SHOWN TO BE EXPANDING" and "Stars forming by themselves won't ever happen based on actual Science"? Given that the request was first to put to you over 16 months ago I suspect I have my answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

“Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.” D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984) page 8

So when asked for some peer-reviewed paper to support your assertion, you have to resort to a mining engineer/economist/philosopher:

. who has been widely dismissed by the scientific community

. who himself thinks that Einstein was wrong in setting the speed of light as a limit, though was unable to publish anything in a peer-reviewed journal supporting this

. claims "that our familiar material world is not the whole of existence as modern science would have us believe" though I'm not sure what, if anything, he advances in support of this claim

. who had to resort to self-publishing his books after being rejected by publishers to whom he shopped them around

?

Of course, none of that is even particularly relevant given that either Larson plagiarized, or you or whoever you took that quote from was either particularly sloppy, or intentionally deceptive in the misattribution of the quote.

[SIDE BAR] Gold and Hoyle were proponents of a "steady state" universe rejecting the Big Bang although it was Hoyle who coined the term. Hoyle is also famous for the tornado through a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747 cosmological argument[/SIDE BAR]

... later in this paper was the following quote -- see if you can find the relevant text...

Any gaseous filament drawn out, or produced as the wake of a galaxy in the intergalactic medium, will now not only fail to disperse, but can even grow denser. The pressure of the hot surrounding gas will push fresh material onto it which will be cooled by contact with the material of the filament. Stars may then form, and excitation of the gas can result from energy liberated at the interface between the hot and the cold gas.

Of course, none of that is even particularly relevant given that either Larson plagiarized, or you or whoever you took that quote from was either particularly sloppy, or intentionally deceptive in the misattribution of the quote.

In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that the online version of Larson's book does cite the Hoyle and Gold paper as the source for the passage PW quoted. Presumably, wherever PW found the quote dropped the attribution because if he were aware of the actual source, it's far more likely he would have cited Hoyle than some obscure author.

__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."

Peace Warrior,
Well, after a quick confirmation in the online text of the book. that Animal Mother provided, it is clear that Larson did not plagiarize, as he preceded the quote that you cited with "As expressed by Gold and Hoyle"

So to summarize your citation of Larson in supporting your position, (a) you attribute a quote to Larson which was really from a paper by Gold/Hoyle (b) the Larson quote was quote mining given that the 2 paragraphs that followed detail a gravitational collapse, (c) even if you had properly attributed the quote to Gold and Hoyle, later in their paper they describe star formation.

In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that the online version of Larson's book does cite the Hoyle and Gold paper as the source for the passage PW quoted. Presumably, wherever PW found the quote dropped the attribution because if he were aware of the actual source, it's far more likely he would have cited Hoyle than some obscure author.